Talk:United States

Frequently asked questions

Q1. How did the article get the way it is?

Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page.

Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"?

Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case.

This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States".

If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.

Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States":

• "United States" is in compliance with the Wikipedia "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Wikipedia naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States.
  • Exceptions to guidelines are allowed.

• If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "Vereinigtes Königreich" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexiko to "United Mexican States".
  • Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other.
  • This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country.

• Well-established encyclopedias in the English language appear to generally use a "common name" policy for article titles. More specifically, the following use "United States" for the title of the corresponding article: MSN Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia, Grolier, and the Micropaedia and online versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In our effort to make Wikipedia an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," (Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <[email protected]>) we would do well to emulate what these well-established encyclopedias do.
  • The Macropaedia version of Britannica uses "United States of America" for its article title.

• With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Wikipedia should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world.
  • Wikipedia is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia.

Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America":

• It is the country's official name.
  • The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name.

• The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America."

• The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America."
  • The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Wikipedia articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Wikipedia is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States.

Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world?

1. Isn't San Marino older?

Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution.

2. How about Switzerland?

Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848.

Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Wikipedia articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence.

The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut.

Q4. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President?

The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox.

Q5. What is the motto of the United States?

There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States.

Q6. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy?

The United States was the world's largest national economy from about 1880 and largest by nominal GDP from about 2014, when it surpassed the European Union. China has been larger by Purchasing Power Parity, since about 2016.

Q7. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"?

In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas.

Q8. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight?

The article is written in summary style and the sections "Indigenous peoples" and "European colonization" summarize the situation.

Territorial acquisitions image

E-960 recently added an image that sandwiches another image, and I think that it should be removed. The image presents a Eurocentric point of view, depicting the European powers from which the United States bought the land rather than the Indigenous peoples who occupied and used that land. The map is also incomplete, as it does not include the Philippines. Can I remove it?  — Freoh 14:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a longstanding map and it was reverted back into the section, as it presents very useful information about the growth of the US. --E-960 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It is still sandwiched, but I've changed it to a map that avoids the presentism issues with the inclusion of modern US state borders over the territories. There is also appropriate mention of what US expansion meant for Native Americans. إيان (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that change, though I would not be opposed to removing the image outright or replacing the Declaration of Independence image.  — Freoh 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

إيان, this new map is not optimal it's a slow animation instead of an all-in-one overview image, and btw it's already used in the Territorial evolution of the United States article. Also, it appears that this is turning into a POV push, the last comment by user Freoh just sounds revisionist; removing the image of Declaration of Independence? Please note that this is an article about a modern state. --E-960 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with إيان & Freoh that the more detailed image was a considerable improvement (better use of space). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Please note that "consensus" is not a tally of a simple vote. Having said that, there are several issues with the new map. On a technical side it's slow as heck and I watched it for like 2 minutes as it gradually goes from one display to another, so it's not better than the original all-in-one map in terms of easy readability. Then on the historical side, this new map creates undue weight, this article covers the history of Native Americans quite comprehensively, we have the "Early history" section and an image of the Cliff Palace, then subsequent text in other sections regarding the American Indian Wars, Indian removal policy, Indian reservations, and California Genocide. So, no one can argue that the topic is being sanitized. However, someone could just as well come in and add a different map and a caption saying that all of Western US was taken from Mexico, so a simple map which shows the territorial expansion of the US is the most neutral in this case. --E-960 (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the slow animation is less than ideal, but I think that your preferred map is misleading, which is more important than the technical inconvenience. If you can find or make an all-in-one overview image that does not have the problems that we have discussed here, then I would be happy to take a look.  — Freoh 01:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, what problems? You objected to the original longstanding map because "it does not include the Philippines" and that it was "Eurocentric". This new map you and user إيان jammed through also has those exact "problems". You turned consensus into a simple vote count and replaced a longstanding map after a short discussion just because someone wrote "I also agree with Freoh and إيان. That's not consensus and the burden is on you to prove that the new map is better, which btw it is not, for technical reasons, and that it appears to have those exact same "problems" you raised about the original longstanding map. --E-960 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's not get angry. I like the new map, because it shows Panama, the Philippines, the evolution of names and territories (Louisiana, Indiana, Northwest, Oregon, Arizona, Arkansaw, Porto Rico, etc.), and the back and forth and back again of secession. For the same number of characters, it conveys *a lot* more information, including about the civil war (treaties between the CSA and Indian nations...) ... though I grant that it is likely to lead people to view the map full screen. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

SashiRolls, let's not cast aspirations about who is angry or not, what just happened is a battleground tactic of forcing a change and POV pushing when there is no consensus (read the Wikipedia definition of what consensus should be, and the Bold, Revert, Discuss approach). Why in the image caption إيان and Freoh decided to write about the conflict with Native Americans and the loss of territories there, when just a well they could write about the US-Mexico war, or the US-Spain war and highlight territorial losses there? Long story short, not only is the new map of poor technical quality, its POV-ish to just select this one issue when talking about a map showing many territorial changes. --E-960 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The reference (Princeton University Press) provided in the caption looks like an excellent read. I see that several links to sub-pages were added that were not in the article before. All in all a very good edit, which does indeed, at least for the moment, seem to have consensus. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you think of this, @SashiRolls: @E-960: above? It would simultaneously show the cotton gin, U.S. expansionism and the desire to equally balance free/slave states, the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War, and the Nadir of American race relations. (With quote from Birth of a Nation) I haven't been involved in this discussion (I saw I got tagged. Sorry for not responding, I didn't see the ping until now.)

This seems to me a clear instance in which multiple image formatting is necessary. The above four images seem to hit all of the main points. KlayCax (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the easiest option is to add an image related to the Trail of Tears (which was a major event at the time related to the removal of Native Americans from across the South) and restore the original map. --E-960 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax's proposed image selection would absolutely not be an improvement. Aside from being cluttered, there is no reason to give the Ku Klux Klan propaganda film The Birth of a Nation pride of place on this article, even if it were given significant critical context.

I also oppose E-960's suggestion while appreciating their idea. The current map is not perfect but it is sufficient and better than the alternatives proposed. إيان (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:Due weight—The scholarly estimate is that 12 million Native Americans were killed in the territory that is now the US as a result of colonization and territorial expansion from 1492 to 1900. Meanwhile, deaths of the US-Spain War numbered in hundreds of thousands; of the US-Mexico War tens of thousands. The figures are beyond comparison. Besides, when dealing with a time scale of centuries, we have to focus on trends instead of isolated wars. إيان (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever that estimate suggests and regardless of its accuracy, 1492–1776 simply has nothing to do with the Vereinigte Staaten. Pizzigs (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Pizzigs, you should read the reliable source cited. It explains the relationship. You can access the source through WP:The Wikipedia Library or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. إيان (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Good to see a real estimate [https://www.se.edu › 2019/09PDF

Counting the Dead: Estimating the Loss of Life in the Indigenous Holocaust, 1492-Present - Oklahoma State University]. But to keep the article as a resource for students and researchers is beyond my time. As has User:Mason.Jones and a few other academic editors... We simply don't have the time to watch over the article anymore. We are at the point again that the article is full of media sources over academic publications to further our reader's knowledge. Moxy- 23:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax is back to edit-warring, claiming there was no preference for the GIF and caption with citations of academic literature. SashiRolls, Freoh, and myself have endorsed the edit here in this discussion, and Moxy has expressed appreciation for the academic source. KlayCax and E-960 have expressed disagreement, but have so far been unsuccessful in convincing other editors of their views. The image text is supported by the academic sources:

• Building an American Empire: The Era of Territorial and Political Expansion (2017) published by the Princeton University Press
• Endless Holocausts Mass Death in the History of the United States Empire (2023) published by New York University Press

إيان (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

In general we need academic contributions. As for the Imaging in question ..... it's not accessible to 30% of our readers..thus in my view an alternative should be found. Overall the article is a time sink and not on a positive path....we have 2 ongoing sock puppet investigations....... that I think is a waste of time we should be focusing our energies on educating editor's not banning them as they would just be back.....best we know who we're dealing with. Moxy- 20:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, remove that file until a consensus is reached. Pizzigs (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer replacing the image with File:Cotton gin harpers.jpg.  — Freoh 01:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Opposed to this proposal. Pizzigs (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Too many indents to follow on mobile. I see that you deleted this image on 12 April. You are probably unaware (due to the rapid archiving of this page) that consensus was established for its use at the end of March. I'm outdenting and reinstating that part of the talk page so that you can explain why you oppose the consensus.

The cotton gin image, for which consensus was established several weeks ago, was removed on 12 April (diff) with the edit summary "Added periods and other minor improvements." I've pulled the discussion back out from the archives and added it below.

US territorial evolution map (converted to .ogg)

Also, it is possible to convert an animated .gif to an .mp4 / .ogg so that it is possible to move the territorial map forward and backwards. I'll try to do that in the near future. I found a tutorial showing how to do this in ffmpeg, but haven't tried it yet. The only difference (if en.wp is like fr.wp) is that the video does not autoplay... and if you press play the media player pops up to nearly full screen. This may not be better than the current animated .gif. @Moxy:, you say above that 30% of people can't view the gif. Why is that? (It works for me both on mobile and desktop, but I suspect you may be talking about something I haven't thought of.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a video format would be better than a GIF.  — Freoh 15:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

1619 image / cotton gin image

After reading the recent justification for a non-consensual removal of the 1619 image of slaves landing at Jamestown (now in the TP archives despite taking place less than 30 days ago):

If we're going to add another picture related to slavery, it should be in relation to the cotton gin. 1619 had little long-term impact on American slavery. KlayCax (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I added an image of just that It was deleted by the same user without discussion. [diff] In their edit summary, they mention "other images of slavery" in the article. There are none: only a map which shows free states and slave states more than 200 years after slavery in the US began. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you SashiRolls.

 Note: KlayCax has also recently inserted their comments into the conversation above about WWII images, distorting the conversation and obscuring the clear consensus, and until now refuses to re-organize them. إيان (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I retrieved the conversation from the archive and placed it below, in case you would like to contribute your perspective. إيان (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

While the 1619 image seemed to me like a good one, the argument that slavery primarily served Europe's sweet tooth until the invention of the cotton gin is not wrong. As such, adding a photo of slaves operating a cotton gin seemed like a reasonable compromise. Perhaps @KlayCax: could comment on their reversion of two people who added an image of what they themself had suggested. Let us also be clear: a map of free states and slave states is not an image of slavery. I forget whether wp:ose is uniquely focused on AfD, but the recourse to comparison with articles about Sudan or Singapore (death penalty) is misguided. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd that this image is quite fair. It shows both American slavery and its relationship to the cotton gin, and I am not opposed to its reintroduction. The Night Watch (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I am going to revert this edit.  — Freoh 00:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm writing a new section on it now. @Freoh: @The Night Watch: @SashiRolls:

It'll be up in the next 24-36 hrs. I've been busy with residency. KlayCax (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually may be more like 48 hrs. Sorry, something came up and I was busy with other things on here today. (The post is going to be 1,500+ words, likely.) KlayCax (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Having seen no objections, I reverted.  — Freoh 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to the cotton gin image. @Freoh:. As I wrote above: If we're going to add another picture related to slavery, it should be in relation to the cotton gin. 1619 had little long-term impact on American slavery It's the nuclear testing photo/1619 picture that's problematic. KlayCax (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

For the other stuff: I'm almost done writing a full response to the other problems related to the article. Residency's kept me pretty busy and there's a lot on my plate right now.

Sorry for the slow response time. KlayCax (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

is America a floor wax or a dessert topping?

Some may remember a 1976 SNL fake commercial in which Dan Ackroyd and Gilda Radner argue whether a can of whipped cream is a floor wax or a dessert topping, whereupon Chevy Chase enters to say, "hey, hey, calm down, you two. New Shimmer is both a floor wax and a dessert topping!"

So we have it with whether the United States is a democracy or a republic. It's both,[1]] and representative democracy should be included in the infobox, along with Federal presidential constitutional republic. I've read through the Talk archives a bit and see the discussions largely assume it's a mutually exclusive proposition, it's one or the other. It's not. Our Talk FAQ loudly proclaims: "The United States is not a democracy!" Of course it is. Why else would we bother to hold elections?

The republic article reads a state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; specifically a state without a monarchy, and the Constitution says The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. So, no kings, no emperors, but rather a democracy: a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy")

Now, there are initiatives and referendums in the United States, a form of direct democracy, but in the vast majority of cases laws are created by representatives elected by popular vote. The electoral college is irrelevant, because presidents don't make law.

Some may be aware that there has been a great deal of discussion in recent years asserting America is seeing "attacks on democracy," with a counter-assertion that America isn't even a democracy in the first place, so democracy can't be under attack. I assert America is clearly a democracy, as well as a republic, and the infobox should reflect that. soibangla (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and the FAQ answer is the laziest possible way to address this: "look at the archives!" Well, I did, and I find a lot of the arguments given in the archives to be lame (e.g. "democracies tend to be more left-leaning than the US"; as if that has anything to do with anything), but it feels like a tall hill to re-litigate millions of disorganized archived arguments. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hearing no objection from any of the 5,117 article watchers, I am adding representative democracy to the infobox and removing "The United States is not a democracy!" from the Talk FAQ. soibangla (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting what other sources say: "constitutional federal republic," (CIA Factbook)[2] "federal republic," (Encyclopedia Britannica) Can you show that any sources use your description?

The problem with the term democracy is that it is on a continuum. For example, various indices list "flawed democracies." Was the U.S. a democracy when only 10% of men over 21 were entitled to vote? Was it a democracy when 10% of the population was enslaved? If you relied on the original Greek meaning, then it was, but it probably doesn't meet modern criteria.

You say that democracy and republic are synonyms. If so, why use both terms? TFD (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: representative democracy and republic are synonyms Republic#United_States which is why the infobox is redundant. 131.193.138.181 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on culture subsection

The below subsection on African American culture has been suggested for inclusion and was removed. A good faith request for mediation did not receive participation from opposing editors and so the edit was restored with the following from the mediator: "At this point, there seems to be a rough consensus for the inclusion of the subsection." After mediation closed additional editors joined the opposition after the fact, removing the below again, participated in edit warring, resulting in this RFC. Shoreranger (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The mediation was closed because no one attended. There was no closing of finding a facts. Moxy- 21:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

False to claim "no one attended". No one *in opposition* attended, despite invitation. The above clearly states "did not receive participation from opposing editors." Shoreranger (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

African-American culture

Main article: African-American culture

See also: Black Codes (United States), Slave codes, Anti-literacy laws in the United States, Education during the slave period in the United States, Treatment of slaves in the United States, and Partus sequitur ventrem

Further information: The Negro Motorist Green Book, Historically black colleges and universities, and Separate but equal

Unique among population groups in the United States due to a history of enslavement and ensuing marginalization including legalized segregation, African-Americans had been likewise prohibited from participating meaningfully in mainstream artistic expressions and so developed their own parallel artforms. Eventually, many African American artistic expressions, forms and styles would become mainstream and be enjoyed and adopted outside the subculture that formed it. African-American music, dance, art, literature, cuisine, and cinema all created significant bodies of work that has a great influence on the culture at large that can stand alone or be considered in conjunction with the broader culture that surrounds it.

References

Shoreranger (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a preponderance of support for inclusion. How long do we need to let this discussion continue before the content can be restored? Shoreranger (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Poll

• Opposed Slavery was not unique to the United States, and other countries with a history of slavery/racial segregation/systemic racism don't have these sections. Pizzigs (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  The point is not that slavery was unique in the US, that is not claimed.

  The point is that slavery and the legacy of slavery forced the creation of a unique culture/subculture in the US in a way that has not played out in other countries. The fact that Wiki articles for other countries with a history of slavery doesn't have "these sections" is not germaine because: a) This is not a section on slavery, it is a subsection on culture, b) those countries don't have half-dozen or more pages comparable to African-American culture, African-American dance, African-American literature, etc. that clearly indicates something unique and notable is going on, c) sins of omission on other pages is no excuse for omission here. Shoreranger (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  As Shoreranger notes above, Slavery was not unique to the United States is a straw man—it does not bare on the matter at hand and such a claim was not made anyway. Also, because WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the content of Wikipedia articles about other countries is irrelevant. إيان (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source is an essay not a guideline, as stated in the article itself. However, WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION give a better understanding of what can be included in a Wikipedia article, especially of such significance as the Vereinigte Staaten. As of now, there are already two distinct paragraph covering the cultural developments mentioned in the proposed text: "In the 1920s, the New Negro Movement coalesced in Harlem, where many writers had migrated (some coming from the South, others from the West Indies). Its pan-African perspective was a significant cultural export during the Jazz Age in Paris and as such was a key early influence on the négritude philosophy." and "The rhythmic and lyrical styles of African-American music have significantly influenced American music at large, distinguishing it from European and African traditions. Elements from folk idioms such as the blues and what is known as old-time music were adopted and transformed into popular genres with global audiences. Jazz was developed by innovators such as Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington early in the 20th century. Country music developed in the 1920s, and rhythm and blues in the 1940s.". As such, I do not see what new the proposed section brings to the article, aside from putting an additional emphasis on the legacy of slavery. Pizzigs (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  The emphasis is on the unique circumstances and extent of suppression and externally imposed dangers, even death, in order for AA culture/subculture not only to develop but to persist. That is unique in at least the US experience, and deserves attention in and of itself, not just the artforms that are now celebrated and accepted despite such active and coordinated attempts to prevent and destroy them. Shoreranger (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I do not believe any additional content should be added regarding the unique circumstances beyond what is already described in the history section. The dictionary you're using as a source covers American culture and its history as a whole, therefore you need to provide specific pages that back up your claims, and there also should be concrete evidence to support your suggestion that this topic "deserves attention in and of itself, not just the artforms that are now celebrated and accepted despite such active and coordinated attempts to prevent and destroy them." Pizzigs (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Being unique in the US experience is not sufficient "in and of itself"? Shoreranger (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  However, I do believe that a shorter version of the proposed text can be incorporated into the United States#Culture and society section. "Many African-American artistic expressions, forms and styles, that had existed as parallel artforms, later gained mainstream acceptance and following. African-American music, dance, art, literature, cuisine, and cinema all created significant bodies of work that have had a great influence on the American culture at large. Pizzigs (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why is it that African American cultural activity existed as parallel artforms? Just so happened? There are reasons and the text that was removed is essential to understanding why:

  Unique among population groups in the United States due to a history of enslavement and ensuing marginalization including legalized segregation, African-Americans had been likewise prohibited from participating meaningfully in mainstream artistic expressions and so developed their own parallel artforms...

  This is not pushing a "US is evil POV." This is simply necessary context as described in the reliable source, and cutting this context out clearly lessens the article's encyclopedic value. إيان (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Unlike many other countries with issues related to slavery, the US is unique in how its past still affects the future. Considering that the US has the largest prison population, where the percentage of African-Americans arrested relative to their total population in the country is much higher, and the effects on culture that this has resulted in, it definitely needs to be mentioned. RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Kommentar Although I consider the inclusion of information on African American culture in this section to be of essential importance as per cited reliable sources, including its unique historical context in US history as influenced by enslavement, racism, segregation, etc., it’s current formulation has issues with WP:Due weight and needs reworking. However, there has been some flagrant denialism and it’s apparent that some editors commenting on the matter have not examined the reliable sources provided in earlier discussions. Of the comments in opposition, I find only Asqueladd’s to be in any way convincing, and they did not advocate for the complete removal of the material but rather for revisiting its formulation and hierarchy. For me, this is the direction in which we need to go. إيان (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I heartily endorse a re-working to be in compliance with WP:Due weight. In the meantime, we need something for editors to work from, not wholesale deletion. Shoreranger (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion of this section. As an uninvolved editor, I'm not sure how it's supposed to be objectionable. Loki (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Opposed just a generic statement with link after link after link. Looking for academic contributions. The article has been overwhelmed lately with copy and pasting..... and non-academic additions. sources have gone downhill real quick. Not sure why this ethnic group requires more attention than the 250 other ethnic groups. I understand segregation is a big problem in the United States but it shouldn't be done in our articles.Moxy- 22:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  The crux of your arguement, "Not sure why this ethnic group requires more attention than the 250 other ethnic groups. I understand segregation is a big problem in the United States but it shouldn't be done in our articles."

  • No other "ethnic group" was enslaved for centuries in the US
  • No other "ethnic group" was specifically prohibited by law to learn how to read for centuries in the US, and then denied the opportunity to do so for an additional century, yet created its own unique literary body
  • No other "ethnic group" was specifically prohibited by law to publicly assemble or be out after dark, but still was able to create an oral tradition of poetry, dance and the performing arts of its own despite centuries of being denied audiences for any works
  • Most, if not all, of the "250 other ethnic groups" were actively encouraged to assimilate into American culture, while AAs were actively being excluded by law, tradition, culture and practice from it for hundreds of years.
  • Lynching. For the perceived transgression of any of these. Death at the hands of a vigilante mob was not regularly and widespread against any other "ethnic group"
  • There are plenty of other of social, political and cultural exclusions beyond mere "segregation" that were used to suppress an AA culture that developed nevertheless, but these alone justify inclusion.

  This isn't segregation to include, it is entirely unique among any group in the US and therefore deserves to be specifically addressed. It is a matter of inclusion, not segregation. Shoreranger (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Kommentar This article is overflowing with subsections, another single paragraph one seems poor. I haven't read through any high-level sources but it certainly sounds like it could be due. If so, better to integrate it into the existing text. The current section has the sentence "Mainstream American culture is a Western culture largely derived from the traditions of European immigrants with influences from many other sources, such as traditions brought by slaves from Africa", followed by "More recent immigration from Asia and especially Latin America has added to a cultural mix that has been described as a homogenizing melting pot...". My reading of the suggested text seems to suggest it fits in between those sections (possibly modifying the first one): a historical "parallel artform" that "later gained mainstream acceptance" fits between the European immigrants (the culture(s) to which it was presumably broadly parallel) and modern immigration. CMD (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  For centuries, African Americans were denied by law, tradition, and politics from participating in US culture, certainly not encouraged to "assimilate" into it, while "European immigrants" were encouraged to a contribute to the "melting pot", because the powerful did not want any indication that AAs had any culture worth assimilating or adding, promoting and encouraging and legally codifying AAs as more like animal than human.

  It was not until centuries later, despite all attempts to dehumanize and suppress AAs, that the subculture was accepted and eventually prized, even though its roots ironically predated the "European immigrant" contributions by centuries. *That's* what deserves recognition. Shoreranger (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my comment, which is not about and does not use the word "assimilate", despite that word being put in quotation marks. CMD (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Proposed additions seems reasonable, well-written, well referenced, neutrally worded, obeys WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and passes WP:DUE. Looks solid. --Jayron32 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Opposed; no new section, but... A lot of this information could be incorporated into the article. Particularly under the present cultural section of the article. Additionally, a lot of this information is already present in the article (much more naturally). The present one already has problems with length. Repeating the same concepts a multitude of times is the wrong way to go about it. KlayCax (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Just to add, I think this may be a reasonable compromise; the information is fine, but it isn't necessary to give it its own section. Finding ways to incorporate it otherwise into the existing structure of the article, where it would present a better narrative flow, is a good idea. --Jayron32 16:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure if this makes any difference in your thinking, but this is suggested as a subsection of "Culture and Society", *not* its own section. Shoreranger (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  My point is that it doesn't really need a header. A paragraph of text, properly integrated into the wider narrative, is usually better than a small, standalone paragraph with its own header; the header and hatnotes aren't really necessary. --Jayron32 17:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Possibly, but it is my point that integrated into the wider narrative has not suitably conveyed the uniqueness within US culture and is not likely to. The "hatnotes" might benefit from editing, but the topics add context. Shoreranger (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  The contention is precisely that this concept is in fact *not* covered, and that "a lot of this information" as you put it is presented out of context and does not express the unique circumstances from which AA culture arose, nor the unique open and legalized opposition to it. Shoreranger (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  The purpose of headers is not to highlight, but to organize. --Jayron32 18:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Great. Let's organize, and not diffuse and decontextualize. Shoreranger (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Curious to know: what reputable sources (academic literature, textbooks, etc.) about US culture and society have those in opposition read that don’t have dedicated African American chapters/sections? إيان (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not a book about US culture, it is a very much shorter format in which Culture is just one of seven main topics. The entire section would be shorter than the introduction of one of those books. CMD (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody said it was a book, but it has to summarize and represent what is in reliable, reputable sources—books, encyclopedias, textbooks, journals, etc. إيان (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – To start with, the sectional hatnotes link to articles that have little to do with the influence that African Americans have had on the general culture. Those links should sit with subsidiary articles on A.A. culture, which are already linked from the article. The text itself merely establishes the unusual conditions under which black culture developed but doesn't say how that culture came to resonate with the population at large. Some of that text is contestable, such as "African-Americans had been likewise prohibited from participating meaningfully in mainstream artistic expressions...", as certainly some of that expression was a deliberate, rebellious refusal to assimilate. And the last sentence is quite confusing. What does it really mean? Add to that the fact that the culture section has had no ethnically specific subsections, which don't even exist in Culture of the United States, where you would expect such subsections in greater detail if they are to be here. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  "To start with, the sectional hatnotes link to articles that have little to do with the influence that African Americans have had on the general culture."

  • The hatnotes are there precisely to address your common presumption "Some of that text is contestable, such as "African-Americans had been likewise prohibited from participating meaningfully in mainstream artistic expressions...", as certainly some of that expression was a deliberate, rebellious refusal to assimilate." African Americans were prevented by law, custom, and threat of vigilante lynchings from assimilating. It was deliberately denied to them by the society at large legally, politically, socially, and culturally. All of the things in those hatnotes demonstrate the means and the methods used to prevent AAs from assimilating, they weren't just being - to paraphrase - "deliberately rebelliously refusing to assimilate".

  "Those links should sit with subsidiary articles on A.A. culture, which are already linked from the article."

  • The fact that despite supposedly "already linked from the article" the continued common presumption you espouse that AAs maintained a "deliberate rebellious, refusal to assimilate" en masse on their own accord, rather than being legally and systematically denied by those in power to opportunity or ability to assimilate even unto the threat of violence or death, proves the need to direct the reader to a more accurate depiction of the truth. It almost sounds like you are saying AAs were too "uppity" to be assimilated, so it was their own fault, which I hope is not the case.

  " The text itself merely establishes the unusual conditions under which black culture developed but doesn't say how that culture came to resonate with the population at large."

  • Agreed, it should probably be added, but let's work on getting consensus on the foundational text first.

  "And the last sentence is quite confusing. What does it really mean?"

  • Presumably the sentence you refer to is "African American music, dance, art, literature, cuisine, and cinema all created significant bodies of work that has a great influence on the culture at large that can stand alone or be considered in conjunction with the broader culture that surrounds it." No one else has expressed confusion, but the sentence acknowledges that African American culture as a body is large and influential, even internationally, and can be and in fact *is* considered by some observers as its own entity, but is equally and logically considered a subculture and therefore a part of US culture - both are true.

  "Add to that the fact that the culture section has had no ethnically specific subsections, which don't even exist in Culture of the United States, where you would expect such subsections in greater detail if they are to be here."

  • AA culture, as demonstrated and discussed above, is unique among all other ethnicities in the US because it is the only one that was actively and specifically oppressed and suppressed by law, and regularly and pervasively enforced by vigilantes with impunity. That's the point, and it's also the reason why it deserves its own subsection. Also, the lack of inclusion of anything in another article is not justification to avoid it in this article. If anything, it may indicate a shortcoming in the other article that needs to be addressed, as well.

  Shoreranger (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Shoeranger: You are overwhelming the discussion. Your involvement should have ended with your initial proposal and comment, and then allowed other people to weigh in with their feelings. Consensus is not built by one person monopolizing the discussion and sucking all of the oxygen out of the room. We need a variety of different people giving their opinions on the matter, not the same person giving the same opinion over and over again, with increasing vehemence. Please stop. It is becoming disruptive. Stop responding to every single comment, and allow the process the time to work itself out without having to make it all about you. --Jayron32 14:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

    I didn't even know that was a thing on Wikipedia. A little surprising, but I think I get the purpose. A little far to accuse me of 'having to make it all about me', when that is not the idea, but fine. Certainly hope it helps get a variety of different to participate, somehow. I'll step back to conform. Shoreranger (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm reading from The Slave Community in asserting that blacks didn't always want to assimilate. They held to their own cultural forms to signify their ability to assert themselves against their masters, who generally did not care how slaves entertained themselves as long as it didn't interfere with the harvest. The ending sentence I questioned is somewhat redundant, within itself ("a great influence on the culture at large that can stand alone or be considered in conjunction with the broader culture that surrounds it.") as well as with regard to the preceding sentence, and somewhat ungrammatical (e.g. for "bodies of work that has" read "...have"). While African Americans were uniquely subjected to the peculiar institution of chattel slavery, there are other forms of economic subordination and emotional suffering inflicted on other groups, none of which explains how the cultures of marginalized people came to influence the culture at large; and inclusion of the proposed subsection would set a precedence that may lead to the inclusion of other such subsections for other groups, thus possibly greatly lengthening an article that is always too long. And, yes, the detail on this article should be a mere summary of what exists in separate articles devoted to American culture generally or that of constituent groups. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle. I think that we should avoid single-paragraph sections in general, and I would prefer that we organize this material a bit differently, but this content deserves due weight. Until we can come to a different consensus, we should go back to status quo mediation consensus that included this material.  — Freoh 22:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was not know where to find that guidance. Thank you, and agreed. Shoreranger (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:QUO is not having it there ,,it was added and reverted...and there was NO mediation..was closed with no participation. Slavery is mentioned 17 times...what is missing?Moxy- 12:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  It was closed with no participation from you. There was a consensus among those who participated.  — Freoh 00:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• SUPPORT inclusion of AA subsection to the culture section. There are many places in the page as a whole that bits of this information could be incorporated (and let's do that also), like adding African Americans' influence on the Jazz age of the Roaring Twenties in the History section or woven into each subsection of the culture breakouts, but going through that weaving process alone would dilute why African American culture is not only notable (and necessary for inclusion in its own subsection) but distinctly relevant. I agree that the notability of AA culture should be called out as distinctly unique from American culture generally for the reasons listed in the og edit, followed later by the bulleted list above by Shoreranger. Pistongrinder (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  opposed as the African American community isn't a separate part of the United States. Very concerning that white people still think that Africa Americans are a have not of today's society. Should be mentioning the strides they've taken over the centuries. 208.96.81.171 (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• SUPPORT inclusion of section. I've done quite a bit of reading and I am certain that we need a section on AA influence. Like most Americans, I love my country and I want our article to show not only the history of our savage enslavement and discrimination of people of color, but also the richness of their contributions to the arts which could not be repressed and eventually even came to be appreciated and imitated. In my reading, I was reminded that Jewish people have also faced discrimination and have responded by being some of the leaders of our art/cultural heritage. Perhaps we need a section on their contributions as well. Sectionworker (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I like this quote: "This interest in Black heritage coincided with efforts to define an American culture distinct from that of Europe, one that would be characterized by ethnic pluralism as well as a democratic ethos. The concept of cultural pluralism (a term coined by the philosopher Horace Kallen in 1915) inspired notions of the United States as a new kind of nation in which diverse cultures should develop side by side in harmony rather than be “melted” together or ranked on a scale of evolving “civilization." [3] Sectionworker (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Reviewing the article and page size this article already too long which is why there's already an article for Culture of the United States where this information can be included. This article should only summarize what's in Culture of the United States. This request appears to be putting the cart in front of the horse. Nemov (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that African American culture is not notable enough to be worthy of summarizing in this article because it is not discussed at length in the culture of the United States article? Personally, I would support expanding or restructuring that article as well.  — Freoh 21:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  The culture section in this article should be a very high-level summary of Culture of the United States. That seems an uncontroversial statement, not sure how thoughts on article notability come into that. CMD (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have a strong opinion about the content other than it's not included in Culture of the United States which this section is supposed to summarize. Nemov (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Airing grievances (reversed American exceptionalism)

So, this sentence was removed because apparently it's POV, which I doubt because it's seems like a reliable source, but whatever. However, what really incensed me is that edit. Here, after cleansing the culture section of moderately positive content, the editor decided to write a separate paragraph on slavery and how the Founding Fathers' views on liberty and equality were incompatible with some of them owning slaves and discriminating against women, and being overall awful.

Some users like invoking Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, despite it being an essay and in now way a guideline, to reject proposals for having consistent guidelines on nation states articles. When I ask why other nations that practiced slavery, and in fact participated in the Transatlantic slave trade long before the United States of America was founded (e.g. the United Kingdom, the country that smuggled slaves to its Thirteen Colonies), don't have these scathing sections on their past evils and long sentences in the lead, describing all the possible problems in the country, they say it comes down to RS. Well, okay. Try finding something about the fact that Britain only finished paying off debts to slave-owning families in 2015 in the United Kingdom article. I imagine if something like that happened in the US, some editors would place that information in the lead and also repeat it in the history, culture, and wealth and poverty sections just to make sure no one misses it.

I feel like a few editors here are so obsessed with the evils of America, that they somehow assume they are unique to the US, completely ignoring all the good things and leading the article to being an unbalanced mess with multiple WP:UNDUE issues. Pizzigs (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

If an editor is incapable of seeing edits beyond the simplistic prism of positive - negative, to the point where they become defensive of some idealized vision of the topic and work against what is in current authoritative, reputable sources (academic literature, textbooks, peer-reviewed journals, etc.)—to the detriment of WP:NPOV—then that editor is participating in WP:Advocacy and possibly WP:Disruptive editing.

From WP:NPOV:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.)

Academic and reference sources such as the Oxford encyclopedia of American cultural and intellectual history are for more prominent, reliable, and reputable, and therefore carry a lot more weight and importance, than middle-market newspapers such as USA Today, especially for the section on US culture and society.

If you feel that the article United Kingdom is missing WP:Verifiable information, show up at that article with reliable sources, but don't attempt to use a mercurial, publicly-edited Wikipedia article as a metric or a source for this article.

Editors don't need to have read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil to edit Wikipedia, but they do need the intellectual maturity to respect what is in reputable sources—even if it's critical, even if they find it negative—because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. إيان (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

With due respect, what you are doing now is using policies and guidelines (contrary to their intent) to conduct Wikipedia warfare against people to "get" them. You're perfectly aware of WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP. Therefore, mentioning slavery, and specifically its incompatibility with the Constitution's stated ideals, in the Culture section amounts to undue weight. Slavery is already mentioned in the lead and History sections, and there're multiple standalone articles dedicated specifically to slavery in colonial America/United States, as well as a Constitution of the United States#Criticisms section. Pizzigs (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly there is a small group of highly motivated, deeply anti-American editors devoted to promoting their POV of this page. This has to stop. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing objectively about the US and its history, based on current academic sources, is not "anti-American". This kind of misinformed hypersensitive sentiment of nationalism or patriotism is useless in building an NPOV encyclopedia. إيان (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Pizzigs is "incensed" about the following:

"However, many historians have noted that the Declaration's pronouncement of "all men are created equal" did not apply to either women or slaves. The men who wrote the Declaration were mostly slaveowners, perhaps accounting for the fact that slaves were not even mentioned. Thirty-four of the forty-seven men depicted in the 'Declaration of Independence' painting were slaveholders and in 1776, while slavery was condoned (“condemned”? - ed.) in every Western country, including France and Britain, all thirteen colonies still permitted it."

They've already expressed a contempt for too much faith in Wiki essays, but Wikipedia:Let it go might be the first thing to address here. If anyone is getting "incensed" they should take care of themselves.

Beyond that, its true that the offending content needs citation, but beyond that, it serves to put some important facts into context.

The real crux of the issue is revealed in the statement 'after cleansing the culture section of moderately positive content", referring to edits by [[User:]]. This is in the broader context of an ongoing effort by other editors recently to "trim" the article down, which have notably *not* to my knowledge been categorized by anyone as "moderately positive" or in contrast 'negative' - because it doesn't matter. As long as it meets Wiki:Due criteria, judgements of positive or negative are irrelevant.

"I feel like a few editors here are so obsessed with the evils of America, that they somehow assume they are unique to the US, completely ignoring all the good things and leading the article to being an unbalanced mess with multiple Wiki:UNDUE issues."

Can anyone genuinely argue that this article doesn't already have enough content that popularly conceived as "moderately positive" or even 'strongly positive'? I objectively don't think so.

How the articles for other countries do or do not address slavery is irrelevant to the US article. There are multiple reasons, but among the most important is that the US experience with slavery was different and is a defining factor in US culture, history and society and that context is precisely what is necessary to be included in this article. There is no unifying content that connects all of the dispersed references to AA culture, so that where those references do show up they seem disjointed and unexplainedly diffuse. The reasons for the development of an AA culture arguably unlike any other subculture in the world is the context that is missing. The fact that other countries have had slavery over history is not germaine, but the way slavery played out in the US and the impacts it had and continues to have on the US is precisely what needs context. The question that needs answering for the reader, in effect, is "If other countries have had slavery why is the AA cultural legacy in the US so unique among nations?" Put that in context and the article will be doing its job.

The argument has been made that slavery was not unique to the US, and its been made over and over and over again, but nobody is making the claim that slavery was unique to the US. Nobody. And therefore, it is not an argument against putting the contemporary and legacy impact of slavery into context in this article. Its NOT a value judgement. The AA experience is different from the experience of all other Americans because of slavery, and that manifested itself in a lot of ways and continues to manifest itself. That is not a 'positive' or a 'negative' necessarily, it just 'is', and has been substantiated with valid citations. Shoreranger (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The However, many historians have noted that the Declaration's pronouncement ... line could work (as a single sentence at absolute most), but I think a whole paragraph devoted to it is very undue. The line thirty-four of the forty-seven men depicted in the 'Declaration of Independence' painting were slaveholders and in 1776, while slavery was condoned in every Western country, including France and Britain, all thirteen colonies still permitted it seems wrong to me for two reasons – one, no need to list the exact number in an article so focused on WP:SUMSTYLE as this one, and two, the existence of slavery in the U.S. in 1776 is already very much established in the article. DecafPotato (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I was reading this article last night, and when I came back to read more today I seen a neutrality issue has been added to it. I assumed the issue was the article has a celebratory version of US history, as has been the case with various books I’ve read, so it’s surprising to see it’s the opposite being argued here. I felt compelled to comment because of this. Bit of background, I’m Irish, and my parents marched in the 1960s civil rights marches in Northern Ireland which were directly inspired by those partaken by minorities in the US. At that time catholics were heavily discriminated against (“Negroes of Northern Ireland” was a phrase associated with the movement), and given this somewhat shared history I’ve been heavily interested in US history. There are a number of issues I see in this article but I will limit it to three: first, Pilgrims seeking “religious freedom”. My question, freedom for who? Here is a quote from historian Kenneth Davis in the article “America's dark and not-very-distant history of hating Catholics“: “We want to show this patriotic view that we were this melting pot of religious freedom. Nonsense. People wanted their own religious freedom, not freedom for others.”. I’d have had a death sentence hanging over me. They were an extremist, persecuting sect intolerant of the beliefs of others. Second issue: “Consent of the governed”, “Self governed”. Unless you were among the white male elites, you consented to nothing as you were not part of any form of governing as highlighted in this article: The "consent of the governed" meant propertied white men only. Third issue: the “melting pot”, “diversity”, “welcoming to immigrants”. Yes, if you were white (prior to 1965). Due to immigration and citizenship restrictions, in 1965 the US population was almost 90% white, and most of the remaining 10% were descendants of slaves. Here is an article titled “The Immigration Act of 1965 and the Creation of a Modern, Diverse America": “Since Congress restricted citizenship to white persons in 1790, the immigration system has been a cornerstone of American Apartheid.” So that’s three issues that this article, the way it is currently written, completely distorts history. I’d like to see those issues I’ve highlighted addressed in the article so we can get closer to an accurate version of events. Thank you. J Sullivan77 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, when the Pilgrims arrived in New England, there was no one there except for the Native Americans. Their idea of fleeing to the New World for religious freedom (from the rest of Europe, for what it's worth) predates even a concept of "(the United States of) America" as we know it today. DecafPotato (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The culture section is also primarily about the country today. @DecafPotato: @J Sullivan77:. For instance, Canada's culture section is much more a product of Pierre Trudeau (1968-1979/1980-1984) than John A. Macdonald.(1867-1874/1878-1891). It would be similarly undue to have Canadian Indian residential school system's mentioned in that section. KlayCax (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Sullivan, indeed there are problems of bias in this article. It is known that Wikipedia has a racial bias. See Racial bias on Wikipedia. Also read our Samuel P. Huntington article and his latest book Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, and especially what he has to say about the Catholic/Protestant problem. This is not the sort of historian that we should be using to make statements in Wikipedia's words. Sectionworker (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize the discredited Huntington was being used as reliable source material here. Yikes. Shoreranger (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I’m the same user as above (J Sullivan 77); couldn’t remember my password so had to register a new account with the same name but just added an initial. Another issue, a fourth if you will, and it relates directly to this heading here, Jefferson’s line “all men are created equal”. We know he wasn’t referring to Natives as he labeled them “savages” in the Declaration. A Native community leader responded to this racist section of the Declaration and the dehumanizing label on his brethren (a legacy of which would continue throughout the next century and be echoed by politicians), with “Any holiday that would refer to my people in such a repugnant, racist manner is certainly not worth celebrating. July Fourth is a day we celebrate our resiliency, our culture, our languages, our children and we mourn the millions — literally millions — of indigenous people who have died as a consequence of American imperialism.”. As a pioneer of scientific racism we also know Jefferson wasn’t referring to blacks as he wrote “blacks are inferior to whites in the endowments of body and mind”, and on blacks becoming mixed with whites he wrote “the improvement of blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by everyone, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life”. That just leaves whites (as being equal) who he was referring to. His views of other races being lesser than whites would also be reflected in the period with white only governance and white only citizenship. This legacy of white superiority and domination left other races marginalized, with Leland T. Saito, Associate Professor of Sociology and American Studies & Ethnicity at the University of Southern California, writing, "Throughout the history of the United States race has been used by Whites for legitimizing and creating difference and social, economic and political exclusion.” (quote from: Leland T. Saito (1998). "Race and Politics: Asian Americans, Latinos, and Whites in a Los Angeles Suburb". p. 154. University of Illinois Press). It’s essential to record history with a full scope, and not pluck out a line that is most comfortable (especially to white eyes). The truth often isn’t comfortable (which applies with my own Irish history), but it is the truth nonetheless that we must report on. Again, this article propagates a distortion of reality, a distortion of the foundation of America, and the legacy of that foundation which so many unfortunate millions then had to endure. Similar to the aforementioned issues in my prior comment, I’d like to see this issue properly looked at, and rectified in the article. Thank you. JB Sullivan77 (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this article could do a lot more to clarify the social hierarchies that permeate U.S. history. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and Samuel P. Huntington's American exceptionalism should not be in this article. I have tried to remove it, but Pizzigs re-added it in their edit war.  — Freoh 15:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why Huntington should be removed as a source? TFD (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

He is most notable for his controversial opinions, and Wikipedia prioritizes facts over opinions. If this article were significantly shorter, it might make sense to balance his perspective with others, but this article is too long, and this seems like a natural place to start cutting.  — Freoh 20:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I realize it's not the best source. But, surely. Individualism et al. are pretty indisputable aspects of American culture?

If there's a better source with a similar statement - then that should be added in its place. KlayCax (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sectionworker's edits

User:Sectionworker, yesterday you introduced outdated Social Progress Index rankings to the Culture section. I moved it to the Economy section and cited the 2022 report as opposed to the 2020 report you had used. Today you went even further, unilaterally removing mentions of HDI and education from the lead, despite there having been no consensus to do so. Furthermore, you added a sentence to the Education section, citing a 2017 report. As one can guess, all these edits followed a pattern of removing content that presents the country in a moderately positive light and adding content that does the opposite, with no regard for WP:UNDUE issues. Instead of editing Education in the United States where the American system's shortcomings might or might not already be covered, you for some reason assume that every possible criticism should be listed on the main page. Can I ask why? Pizzigs (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Why? Because I want our articles to be accurate. The lead, now that you have reverted my edits, states "The U.S. ranks very highly in international measures of quality of life, income an wealth, economic competitiveness, human rights, innovation, and education;" Please show me the stats that show that the US measures very high in the quality of life and education. Thanks. Sectionworker (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We really need all to look as sources in all matters not direct editors to Wikipedia pages or old stuff. An article of this nature is not the place for guess work or to learn the Wikiways. Talk after talk above just full of Pov's over citing sources.

• Amadeo, Kimberly. "U.S. Education Rankings Are Falling Behind the Rest of the World". The Balance. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
• "OECD Better Life Index". OECD Better Life Index. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
• "LGBT Rights by Country / Best and Worst Countries for LGBTQ+ Rights 2023". 2023 World Population by Country (Live). 2005-07-20. Retrieved 2023-04-18.

Moxy- 19:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you choose to ignore me. Please furnish the stats that I asked for or I will need to remove the education and standard of living mentions from the lead. Sectionworker (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The U.S. education system ranks very high and the country's HDI is literally 'very high' (check the infobox). Pizzigs (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, one at a time. You choose to use the World Population Center while I use the Pew Research Center. Do you see the difference here? We must strive to use only RS in order to make our articles as accurate as possible. Sectionworker (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The 2015 (upd. in 2017) PRC article you cited is too narrow, giving specific data for elementary and middle school students in select subjects, completely ignoring higher education. The WPC article I cited uses rankings from U.S. News & World Report, so I do not get why you would redlink WPC to imply they are unreliable. Pizzigs (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't you find it odd that the red linked source finds the top ten to be: The United States The United Kingdom Germany Canada France Switzerland Japan Australia Sweden The Netherlands While the blue linked Pew finds Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc. at the top [4] ? And please don't again say that wpr uses a blue link article. If a tabloid uses CNN for a quote, is the tabloid then OK? Sectionworker (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you consider these rankings reliable? Pizzigs (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No I do not. I do not see CNN as an expert on global education ratings. PEW is well known and is used repeatedly in many of our Wikipedia articles. CNN, as a ratings expert, is not. See this [5] Sectionworker (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I was unable to find any mention of CNN there. Can you quote a specific paragraph? In any case, there're no up-to-date and reliable education rankings by country, the scope is too broad. The 2017 PRC article you cited features a report that "measures reading ability, math and science literacy and other key skills among 15-year-olds in dozens of developed and developing countries" and "[The study which] tested students in grades four and eight every four years since 1995. In the most recent tests, from 2015, 10 countries (out of 48 total) had statistically higher average fourth-grade math scores than the U.S., while seven countries had higher average science scores. In the eighth-grade tests, seven out of 37 countries had statistically higher average math scores than the U.S., and seven had higher science scores." Too narrow and dated, in my opinion, and suits individual section in Education in the United States better. Pizzigs (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The Programme for International Student Assessment test for 2019 does not show the US in first place, and in fact they are not even in the top 10 for reading or the top 20 for math. [6] [7] Sectionworker (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that we should not say that the U.S. ranks very highly in education, especially not in the lead.  — Freoh 15:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

There has been no comment from the objecting editor so I plan to fix the claim that the US ranks first in education and instead use the Pisa information, since they are considered to be the best source. Now I plan to move on to the claim that the US ranks so high in the quality of life stats. According to Numbeo we are number 17. [8] The article is now using the Human Development Index, which does not measure quality of life. Sectionworker (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the reports measure different things. One measures perception based on polling, while the other was completed by experts. The U.S. of course remains the top choice for foreign students, so would poll well.

The U.S. ranking on the expert report is fairly high relative to other countries, but is low compared with other Western developed nations. I think the reason for this is that while the U.S. has leading educational institutions, it also has an unevenness of quality in public education. TFD (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The AP Poll is mentioned here: [9] Sectionworker (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, an update on altruism. We are not longer in the top ten. [10] Sectionworker (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Complete rewrite?

Part of me wonders if this article could benefit from being completely rewritten. The problem is that at this point, everyone has thrown everything and the kitchen sink into the article and it's a nightmare. Maybe completely starting from scratch and following the pattern of our feature articles like Japan is our best bet. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes Derrick your academic rewrite would be much appreciated. ...... wondering if this should be done in draft first. This way any points of contention can be dealt with in the draft space over article space. We have a slew of new editors who will need guidance and explanation of why things are done a certain way. Moxy- 20:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Support The article in its current form is biased. I hope User:KlayCax is okay with me posting excerpts from our discussion on their talk page.

• Compare the Japan treatment of the country's respective atrocities during WWII to the U.S.

Japan's simply states:

Amidst a rise in militarism and overseas colonization, Japan invaded China in 1937 and entered World War II as an Axis power in 1941... On December 7–8, 1941, Japanese forces carried out surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor, as well as on British forces in Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong, among others, beginning World War II in the Pacific. Throughout areas occupied by Japan during the war, numerous abuses were committed against local inhabitants, with many forced into sexual slavery. After Allied victories during the next four years, which culminated in the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender...

The United States article has been recently changed to have all of the worst aspects of U.S. history highlighted.

It's not a perfect estimate. But from my calculations:

United States's has around 400-500 "positive words" (vs. ~2,000 negative)

Japan's is 771 words positive. (vs. 360 words negative)

Canada's is 800 words positive. (vs. 278 words negative.)

• Compare the U.S.'s coverage during WWII to Japan's.

• How the American, Australian, and Canadian treatment of indigenous people is covered. (Considered by most historians to be roughly equitable. Canada's and Australia's minimizes it as a natural part of their respective histories. The United States article goes on a multiparagraph, detailed response to it that outpaces the entire American Revolution and Founding. (2x-3x when you count slavery)

• First Nation (Canada) inequalities are minimized in the article. Despite First Nations peoples farring either similar or worse than America on the metrics cited. See this chart.)

• There's other problems as well. But these are the ones that immediately jumped out to me. The U.S. article has changed in a radically negative direction since 2016.

• Another example is the coverage of slavery in the Vereinigtes Königreich article (just a single paragraph in the history section): "Britain played a leading part in the Atlantic slave trade, mainly between 1662 and 1807 when British or British-colonial slave ships transported nearly 3.3 million slaves from Africa. The slaves were taken to work on plantations in British possessions, principally in the Caribbean but also North America. Slavery coupled with the Caribbean sugar industry had a significant role in strengthening and developing the British economy in the 18th century. However, with pressure from the abolitionism movement, Parliament banned the trade in 1807, banned slavery in the British Empire in 1833, and Britain took a role in the movement to abolish slavery worldwide through the blockade of Africa and pressing other nations to end their trade with a series of treaties." [The paragraph] is almost laudatory, with a huge emphasis on the government's role in ending slavery. And this sentence is straightforward slavery apologia: "Slavery coupled with the Caribbean sugar industry had a significant role in strengthening and developing the British economy in the 18th century." Pizzigs (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  The above is the reason we would need this done in draft.....would need to explain that coverage should equate to scholarly publications. Moxy- 21:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not treatment of aboriginals deserves more attention in articles about Canada and Australia is irrelevant.

Your metrics chart compares conditions for aboriginal Canadians and African Americans, which shows that aboriginal Canadians fare worse on most metrics and all metrics when compared to the national average. But a more fair comparison would be with American Indians, who fare far worse than African Americans and aboriginal Americans on all metrics.

Historically American treatment of aboriginal people was far worse than Canada's. Canada for example never went to war against them with its attendant atrocities or had a Trail of Tears.

Furthermore, villianization of Indians by politicians and the entertainment industry has been ubiquitous.

The findings on aboriginal residential schools have become a topic of major concern in Canada recently. Yet the U.S. had its own Indian boarding schools, which took in more than twice the percentage of aboriginal people and were the same or worse.

TFD (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I would have given more credence to your views on the subject if your edit history did not show such an obvious anti-American bias. I spent literally 5 minutes browsing your edits, and that was enough to establish some patterns. Here you attempted to introduce your POV on documented Russian war crimes by adding "alleged" to the tile; on the other hand, when an opportunity arises to add controversial information about American war crimes, you support it with little hesitation. According to you, Russia did not commit war crimes in Ukraine and RT is not propaganda. Russia of course did not occupy the Ukraine, because it was just another republic of the USSR (saying 'the' Ukraine in 2022 is just reprehensible); it seems the Ukrainian war of independence never happened in your reality). And some defense of Vladimir Putin to sum up your editing patterns. Pizzigs (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop accusing others of bad faith please, see WP:GF. Oh, and LOL. Commies, commies everywhere!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I've agreed with you below regarding WP:GF. As for the Red Scare, I can link Moscow trials, to show that excesses can occur on both sides (and I don't remember the Hollywood blacklist members being subject to show trials, torture and execution, but it's not a competition I suppose). Pizzigs (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you want the article to say that excesses in the U.S. were not as bad as those in the USSR under Stalin? Don't you think that even comparing the U.S. to Stalin's USSR is anti-American? TFD (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

IOW you are not interested in the strength of arguments but who made them. See argumentum ad hominem for why this is not a good idea. Otherwise, you have misrepresented my edits. In most of your examples, I asked for sources for statements that editors wanted to add which btw I do for any article regardless of topic. Also, when I said Ukraine was part of the USSR, I was merely stating the position of (ironically) the U.S. government, which recognized the USSR in 1933 with its then current borders. Ukraine recognizes this under its Law on the Succession of Ukraine and this position is (ironically) supported by the U.S. government. Anyway, can you explain why a comparison of the status of aboriginal Canadians with African Americans says anything about how the U.S. treats and has treated American Indians? TFD (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, participate in the writing process. The issue of past evils (slavery/genocide/racial segregation etc.) needs to be covered in an objective, impartial and balanced way, without giving undue weight to specific events at the expense of other events of equal, if not greater, importance. It has been decided to use featured articles such as Japan and the Vereinigtes Königreich as examples of the quality the Vereinigte Staaten article should possess. Pizzigs (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Racial inequality continues to be a major issue in the U.S., more than in other Western democracies. The Best Countries report 2023 for example rated the U.S. 9.8/100 in racial equality, compared with Canada, which scored 98.6/100. I don't know what rank the U.S. was, but in 2020, it was ranked 10th worst. Meanwhile, the report rated the U.S. as the fourth best country, so you cannot claim it is "anti-American." TFD (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Then it should definitely be mentioned, in addition to other categories -> attributes such as religious freedom, low corruption, and well-developed digital infrastructure. Pizzigs (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If you check the archives, I argued in favor of including "it has low levels of perceived corruption," which is still in the article. You can check the archives for the lengthy discussions. What's interesting about the U.S. is how it ends up as one of the best countries in the world: it surpasses most countries in many areas yet falls well below average in others. It's not anti-American to point that out. TFD (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That ranking is weird and questionable to say the least. It lists Serbia, Bosnia–Herzegovina, South Africa, Malaysia, India, Oman, and Lebanon favorably than the U.S. in racial and ethnic equality/equity. Anyone who knows anything about those countries know that's an utterly ludicrous conclusion.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. @TFD: @Pizzigs:. KlayCax (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, do you have reliable sources supporting your dismissal of this source as an utterly ludicrous conclusion?  — Freoh 15:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It measures racial equality, by which it means relative outcomes in criminal justice, health care, economics and education. You might be thinking about racist attitudes among the general public, where I image the U.S. would rank better. Do you have any reason to believe that there is greater inequality in these areas in those countries? TFD (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Gaps in coverage

Since I've been twice reverted for attempting to address a failing of this article, I figure I should leave a note and back off. The Transportation section has no mention of the Interstate Highway System, which is used by a majority of the country's citizens daily and has been the driving factor (pun intended) behind the post-1960 development of urban and suburban areas, nor the US's unusual lack (for a developed country) of high-speed rail. The urbanization section fails to mention suburban sprawl, a major ecological and livability issue that plagues every metropolitan area in the country. While going into too much detail would run afoul of the summary style, surely we can at least try to integrate some improvements into the article instead of reverting on sight and forcing readers to use subpages just to find out about basic facets of American life. SounderBruce 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with this edit. IMO it should go back in the transportation section. Sectionworker (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, when the article becomes a joke like Human rights in the United States because everyone randomly adds whatever failings or criticisms of the country they can find on the Internet, you will understand the short-sightedness of that approach. Pizzigs (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"nor the US's unusual lack (for a developed country) of high-speed rail." Personal transportation in the United States is dominated by automobiles, that is well explained in the subsequent paragraph. The U.S. also has many of the world's largest and busiest airports, meaning air travel is popular. Rail travel is not, hence the lack of high-speed rail, that's how market economy works. Just because you feel it's bad doesn't mean the article should have yet another critical paragraph (see WP:DUE). Pizzigs (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That's an obvious chicken and egg scenario. If the US had better rail systems, rail travel would inevitably be more popular. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That is speculation and clearly undue. Pizzigs (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No it's not. I wouldn't put it in the article, but it's a perfectly rational thing to say. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning how the U.S. differs from other Western democracies is not criticism. The fact that there are reasons for the differences does not mean they should not be mentioned. We wouldn't strike out for example that the U.S. is the third largest country in the world because this can be explained by the fact that only two other countries were larger. TFD (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That section's purpose is overviewing transportation in the United States in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. Mentioning a lack of high-speed rail "compared to other developed countries" is WP:UNDUE. One can cover many economic, cultural, political, and social aspects where the US leads/does not lead compared to other developed nations and nations in general; only the most critically important should be in the article. Pizzigs (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Leaving you (or me) to be the one to decide what is due or undue would be undue. I can assure you that the lack of high speed rail is often discussed by visitors to the US and the travel agencies they use. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree that we visitors often find the American railway system a bit curious, and I'm used to quite some stuff from german and italian railways. But here's an idea: Why not just change the choice of words? A "lack" does sound negative or at the least critisizing, but if we went with "a comparatively small amount due to the dominating use of cars", or something like that, couldn't we all agree?CarolingianCitizen (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe that would work, but I don't think we should try to include a reason. We may not agree on that. I have perceived quit negative stigma AGAINST trains in the US, and feel that's at least part of the reason. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

There are expert opinions from people who study matters such as these to be found in WP:reliable sources and that is what should shape the article, not WP:OR from editors. إيان (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what a reliable source is. Please find me one that addresses this matter and is not written by an American. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ONUS states that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content—that means you need to find reliable sources and present them yourself to convince other editors. You can access sources through the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.

You can start your research with rail historian H. Roger Grant's The Railroad: The Life Story of a Technology (2005) or Transportation and the American People (2019). إيان (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Or even better his Railroads and the American People (2012). إيان (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

There would still be the good old "various reasons", though that's a wee bit too vague and perhaps not the most elegant solution... alternatively, just leave out the comparison entirely and say that there's a more established motor vehicle infrastructure than railway system, that's neutral and as far as I can say from a european perspective not wrong. After all, it's about the US and not a comparison of countries CarolingianCitizen (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this information is worth mentioning. This is neutral and notable information, not yet another critical paragraph. With that said, this article is quite long, and it would not hurt to tighten this section and limit it to key details.  — Freoh 20:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree for all the reasons given by Freoh. To intentionally omit such a glaring contrast to transportation in other developed nations is editorializing by omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoreranger (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I object to total lockdown of the article

I recommend it be downgraded to administrator review of pending edits. soibangla (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You can object all you want, but unless and until you can force the people involved in the edit war to stop editing the article, it will not be unprotected. While it may be inconvenient for you to have the article fully protected, it is more inconvenient to have to deal with the kind of disruptive activity that led to the protection. It's okay though, in 1 short week, you'll be able to edit it just fine. --Jayron32 15:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Why not just block the editors breaking WP:3RR? It's not like uninvolved editors are flocking in by droves to edit war this article RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there’s concern they’d return as sock puppets and waste more time. إيان (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If someone has an army of extended-confirmed sock puppets I would be very concerned. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

When there are more than a small handful of editors edit warring, page protection is easier. In this case, as you can see in the page history, there are a large number of people edit warring over various aspects of this article rapidly and without cessation, at least until the moment it was protected. Now, those people have to come to a consensus on the talk page if they want their edits to be enacted, rather than merely rapidly and disruptively trying to repeatedly force their own edits through by wearing down their perceived opponents. --Jayron32 12:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that reporting and blocking individual users may be necessary if the disruptive behavior continues. Some of the edit warriors expressed no intention to stop when I confronted them on their talk pages.  — Freoh 20:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• I broadly agree with Jayron's comments. In most cases, a short period of protection is preferable to issuing a small pile of blocks. Also, usually if you object to an admin action, the place to start is talking to that admin, in this case @Deepfriedokra:. They aren't necessarily watching the talk page. All that being said, if the same users start up with the same behavior when the protection expires, I'd suggest reporting them at WP:ANEW. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  1) No, not watching this talk. Was not approached on my talk. 2) I see no indication the edit warring would not resume, but would not object at all if another admin unprotected. 3) Agree with Beeblebrox. 4) I thought trying to give everyone a chance to to calmly discuss content and avoid cyclical edit warring was preferable to blocking. If blocking some people is what's needed, then they can and should be blocked. All I am saying, is let's y'all work together so blocking won't become necessary. 5) The protection expires Thursday. Let's hope that disputes are resolved before then and that blocking will not be needed. 6) I for one am not gonna review and approve pending edits as picking and choosing content would WP:INVOLVE me and that ain't happening. Was not aware such a feature was available, but it's not my job to dictate/gate keep content. Deciding what to leave in and what to leave out is the job of the editors of this page. If they need someone to help them resolve these disputes, they can seek WP:DRN They can open an WP:RFC on the appropriate Wikiproject(s} talk page{s). So on and so forth. 7) I'm here in response to @Beeblebrox:'s ping, which required an WP:ADMINACCOUNT reply, but I've been ill on the one hand and I try to take Sundays off anyway on the other. 8)As I am aware of the "objection" to the FP of this page, the next step is to request unprotection at RfPP. I think it would be a tough sale, but not my decision. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Rockstone35: Rewrite of U.S. article

• [Moved to new section by KlayCax] Yeah, the problems with NPOV (on both sides) is the main reason I was proposing starting over. I have created a draft article here: User:Rockstone35/United_States. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for such a rewrite? Is the template at the top of the article justified? I don't think so. I'm all for improving the article, but see a total rewrite as unnecessary, and I would vehemently oppose such massive changes to the article based on what I see now with the link above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The rewrite has already been commandeered by a WP:tendentious editor and is rife with WP:OR WP:POV editorializing. The process should have been begun with gathering and discussing reliable sources and establishing an outline, which is standard for writing any research paper. Otherwise, the whole point of the rewrite of producing a fresh, clear, WP:verifiable, balanced NPOV article is lost. إيان (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The current article is the product of relative consensus. Some editors do not like a perceived trend in content inclusion and now wish to throw the baby out with the bath water. I suspect the hope is to then dominate the rewrite process more easily than the existing editing process. Shoreranger (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head, especially with your last comment. This is immediately apparent when you look at the edit history of this "rewrite" and see who has been most aggressively contributing to it. My one edit has already been put into brackets, meaning that there is "no consensus whether to add," even though consensus on this material has already been established by myriad discussions on talk and an RfC. To be clear, I see this as an attempt by some editors to subvert the established consensus and remove material they don't like, and in some cases have been attempting to remove for months with no success. And some of the comments in this very thread by some of the most prolific contributors to the "rewrite" are also quite telling.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

To voice my opinion on this, I agree with the concerns voiced by C.J. Griffin and Shoreranger. DecafPotato (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In any case, I see a pattern. Users who frequently edit Mass killings under communist regimes and defend pro-communist positions on its talk page, tend to oppose any changes to the Vereinigte Staaten article. If anything, this convinces me that changes are urgently needed. Pizzigs (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Cute. Although I would be careful to accuse others of POV pushing when it seems you have been doing quite a bit of this yourself in articles such as Whataboutism, Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not think introducing sourced content is POV, especially when it is done to adhere to WP:PROPORTION. On the other hand, cherry picking and consciously adding only negative stuff is definitely POV. Pizzigs (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Here you reverted edits under the pretext of them having been introduced by an IP (despite that not having been the case), and another user reverted you afterwards. Your entire editing history follows a simple pattern of introducing content related to criticisms of capitalism/the United States (primarily wealth inequality, poverty etc.) and minimizing/erasing criticisms of communism. Pizzigs (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

LOL Okay. Yeah, I only edit on those topics and nothing else. The one edit was a mistake on my part; I revert unconstructive IP and SPA edits quite a bit. Again, take a look at your own edit history before leveling accusations, and stop accusing others of bad faith please (See: WP:GF).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're right with regard to WP:GF. We should respect our differences and collaborate to produce a balanced and impartial article. However, it is also important to remember WP:RGW, given that some users introduce content because they feel some underrepresented aspects need to be specifically highlighted. Pizzigs (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:RGW, you mean like your contributions to articles pertaining to communist regimes you have been hitting recently?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"cherry picking and consciously adding only negative stuff is definitely POV"... So, what have you added to communism related articles other than stuff that is overtly negative?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe read Russian famine of 1921–1922? Pizzigs (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe read Wealth inequality in the United States?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Without experienced editors helping it won't work out. Need editors with collaboration skills.Moxy- 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

When experienced editors with collaboration skills agree to mediate and invitations to participate are ignored it won't work out either, and also exposes those who refuse to participate as disdainful of the process at best and intent on sabotaging the process at worst. Shoreranger (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

When I find an article needs a lot of work, I find it's easier to rework it one section at a time rather than doing a rewrite all at once. With that said, I've never attempted to rewrite an article anywhere near this size. And on that note, I think a lot of the "rewrites" really just need to be more concise summarizing and removal of undue content. This article has dozens of immediate subarticles where the excess can be moved. The WP:DETAIL guideline is our friend. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• If I had known that this was going to result in a bunch of drama, I wouldn't have bothered making that page. The goal of the rewrite was simply to bring this article to the same quality as all the other Featured Articles, which I think I might just have to accept is never going to happen. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  There's still a path forward, @Rockstone35:. I propose (provided everyone else here can agree) that @Rjensen: crafts the 1820-1861 section. (If he's okay with it.) He's been completely uninvolved from the drama, is a historian, and has extensive knowledge of the era.

  Writing more on it tomorrow. I really want to get this article to GA-tier status by the end of the year/early 2024. KlayCax (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, we go section by section - even if it requires RFC's - in order to improve the page. KlayCax (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm flattered but I have other big projects to work on. The trick is to get a recent university textbook and follow its outline. (a NEW textbook costs $150, but a used older edition will cost under $10 at abe.com. ) Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rockstone35 United States is the most-viewed article on Wikipedia to-date, and as such is going to be a target for debate and discussion until the end of the project. Unless you expect to be constantly updating the article and reviewing new edits on a regular basis, gaining and maintaining a Featured quality article over the long term will be extremely difficult. I'm not one to suggest that obtaining B-Class or even GA status is impossible, but concentrating your efforts elsewhere may be more productive. I took a break from this talk page back in July 2022 (Under my old username CollectiveSolidarity), and with the time on my hands I was able to curate a FA of small size and attention, which still proved to be a tricky task to perform. Perhaps you could try something similar? The Night Watch (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@The Night Watch: It's just frustrating because other country's articles are Featured Articles. Of course, unlike Canada, I suppose everyone has some type of opinion of the US. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rockstone35 I would read in between the lines on those articles. A lot of them were promoted more than a decade ago, and FAC standards were much looser then. I'd say at least two of them would not survive a WP:FAR without some work, and all of them may need updating at the very least. The Night Watch (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

When did the us gain indepdence

It was 1776 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberblockfan22323 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Who is saying that the U.S. didn't gain independence then? KlayCax (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about, but it declared independence in 1776—there was still the small matter of fighting off the British Empire. The Treaty of Paris wasn't signed until 1783. إيان (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

True, but if you win the war, effectively you get to declare your independence date as the date you declared it. In addition, the US was recognized internationally by France, and prevented any meaningful occupation of territory by the British following declaration of independence (really the only exception is NYC, and for a while at the end Charleston), so by most standards independence in this case is concurrent with declaration. Shoreranger (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

A path forward

Taking Thebiguglyalien's advice to rework it one section at a time, we should focus first on the United States#Culture and society section as it seems to be the most hotly-debated section at the moment. I propose that the first step should be to collectively identify and select a handful of recent (last few years), highly reputable tertiary sources to be synthesized and subsumed into a new text in WP:summary style. Once we have our best of the best sources, in Moxy's words, then we can start to compose a text derived strictly from those highly reputable academic sources. Hopefully this approach with harmonize dissonant energies to the benefit of the article. إيان (talk) 05:46, e poliketh gnidgelwonca24 April 2023 (UTC)

One source I propose, one I have cited several times, is:

• The Oxford encyclopedia of American cultural and intellectual history. Joan Shelley Rubin, Scott E. Casper. Oxford. 2013. ISBN 978-0-19-976436-5. OCLC 835227416.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)

I'd also like to remind active editors of the wealth of high quality academic sources available to them through the WP:Wikipedia Library. Remember, for summary style we're looking for encyclopedias and textbooks. I'm interested to see what such sources others might recommend. إيان (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:PSTS—Best to write about historical concepts and events using high quality, academic secondary publications while saving tertiary sources as aids for clear and concise expression. (While acknowledging the current political context makes for a protracted task). One section at a time is a very good idea. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 09:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Great suggestion and thanks for the opening to agreement. For starters, the first few lines are problematic. I removed them because of poor sourcing and was reverted. One of them is, "colonial college scholar" J. David Hoeveler and the other is controversial political scientist Samuel P. Huntington. Sectionworker (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

As with writing any research paper, let’s focus first on selecting our sources before concerning ourselves with writing text. Using the most recent reputable sources will naturally resolve issues such as those. إيان (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

For more specific history articles, absolutely. But for the Culture and society section in a WP:Summary style article such as this, highly reputable tertiary sources are most useful, at least for creating a basic initial framework that’s balanced for WP:due weight. إيان (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That liberty, equality under the law, democracy, social equality, property rights, and a preference for limited government are professed U.S. ideals doesn't seem very disputable to me.

I don't know of any historian that denies that liberal democracy, property rights, and limited government are fundamental U.S. principles. (Or that equality under the law/social equality aren't part of its professed ideals.) Huntington is a controversial source: but that's not necessarily problematic if we're citing relatively uncontroversial subject matter. KlayCax (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, what's your high quality current academic textbook or encyclopedia that supports the above statement, which differs from how the material is actually presented currently in the article:

Americans have traditionally been characterized by a unifying belief in an "American creed" emphasizing liberty, equality under the law, democracy, social equality, property rights, and a preference for limited government.

This statement has grave WP:NPOV issues by giving WP:undue weight to this particular POV at the introduction of the section. It also has issues with WP:balance because experts would disagree on the extent to which liberty, equality under the law, democracy, social equality, property rights, and a preference for limited government are materially applicable to US culture and society, and those expert critical views are not represented. To explicitly state that values such as these are professed would probably be fair, but if it's not given prominence in current, high quality encyclopedias and textbooks, it's WP:undue in this small section of a WP:summary style article. إيان (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Another high quality source for this section, also published by Oxford University Press though:

• Avila, Eric (2018-08-23). "American Cultural History: A Very Short Introduction". Very Short Introductions. doi:10.1093/actrade/9780190200589.001.0001.

إيان (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The two RS that you have suggested are five and ten years old. That's fairly recent, and yet when one considers that so much has occurred in the last five years, for example the killing of George Floyd, take a knee, the 2017 Women's March, mass shootings, and others, where would one find the RS that you find acceptable for these cultural events? Sectionworker (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair concern. I found these:

• Engerman, David C.; Friedman, Max Paul; McAlister, Melani, eds. (2022). The Cambridge History of America and the World: Volume 4: 1945 to the Present. The Cambridge History of America and the World. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108297554. ISBN 978-1-108-41927-7.
• Morse, Kimberly J. (2022-08-23). The Americas: An Encyclopedia of Culture and Society [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-5239-8.
• Bronner, Simon J. (2021). Americanness. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-45297-0.
• Dix, Andrew (2022). American studies : the basics. ISBN 978-1-138-77504-6. OCLC 1250429807.
• Sut, Jhally; Angus, Ian H (2022). Cultural politics in contemporary America. ISBN 978-1-000-72635-0. OCLC 1351659130.
• U.S. American culture as popular culture. Astrid Böger, Florian Sedlmeier. Heidelberg. 2022. ISBN 978-3-8253-4927-1. OCLC 1357069015.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)

إيان (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Human rights

I'm curious why a country that owns a torture camp (Guantanamo Bay detention camp), few healthcare rights, institutional racism, the largest prisoner population on the planet, detention without trial, and mass surveillance, is described as having a positive human rights record in its lead.

What was the decision making process behind that laughable description? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)